"End looms for US Air Force's 'Warthog' ground-attack jet" This is Ridiculous!

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Lil Mike, Dec 12, 2013.

  1. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    End looms for US Air Force's 'Warthog' ground-attack jet

    Washington (AFP) - Long disliked by the US Air Force, the A-10 Thunderbolt II ground-attack jet may finally be heading for the chopping block due to budget constraints.

    The "Warthog," first designed as a tank buster to target Soviet armored vehicles in the middle of the Cold War in the early 1970s, is shunned by many aviators.

    Although the twin-engine aircraft is slow, it is incredibly efficient at providing close air support for ground forces, making it an appreciated asset for the US Army.

    But the US Air Force "never had a whole lot of interest in a subsonic close-air support plane," explained Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with consulting firm Teal Group...


    The Air Force has been trying to get rid of this aircraft for years but it's far more useful than Jet fighters. We've not had a dogfight in years but we spend billions to stroke the egos of fighter jocks. Meanwhile, an aircraft that actually has a real close air support use is on the cancel list again.

    If the Air Force wants to get rid of the A-10, then the agreement between the Air Force and the Army that limits the size of fixed wing aircraft the Army can have should be revisited. I think the Army would be glad to take over the A-10 program if the Air Force doesn't want it.
     
  2. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would rather have the A-10 than the F-35 or Reaper, so if the US is selling them on the cheap the UK armed forces could use them.
     
  3. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well I would hope that if the Air Force is going to be foolish enough to get rid of them, that the Army can get them. We don't have a similar aircraft that could take it's mission.
     
  4. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I bet the Marines would love to get their hands on some. While they would have to be lifted onto a carrier by crane, I bet they would be able to take off from one with no problem (even without the catapult).
     
  5. everyman2013

    everyman2013 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    825
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I never did understand why the Air Force, that has no ground troops to speak of, needed a ground support aircraft in the first place. My solution: A10's on a ski-jump carrier. Marines would probably take them all, even without the carrier. And I know a couple of Hog pilots who won't fly anything else, one of them was even offered an F-18, with a promotion, and turned both of them down.
    Enjoy!
     
  6. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The A-10 gets all the glory but it's the choppers that actually do most of the same work.
     
  7. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem with the A-10 isn't lack of love but the simple fact these are all late 70s aircraft and the airframes are fatiguing out. Non-ferrous alloys do that, y'know.

    What makes it bad was that the jigs and fixtures for the a-10 were destroyed as the production contract ended, so you just can't get parts. The fleet of A-10s is flying now on parts retrieved from the boneyard at Davis-Monthan. They have to be replaced by something.

    What is really called into question is the existence of the Air Force in general. A lot of the conditions that were the basis of the old Key west agreement (1948) have long gone away. Long-range manned bombers were the centerpiece of SAC and the Air Force in 1948. They are niche players today. The long-range bomber force of potential rivals (Russia, China) combines to less than a hundred planes. NORAD retains some usefulness but less than during the height of the Cold War.

    The missions of the Air Force were taken mostly from the Army Air Corps, and a little from the Navy. The Marines never had anything to do with Key West. They retained their own ground support planes. Many Marine pilots are c-qualled.

    IMO, the Air Force should be broken up. Space Command could be an independent service, as could NORAD. NORAD would include a few interceptors and a lot of ABMs. The air dominance mission remains vital but could easily be returned to the Army and Navy.

    The Air Force was (with some notable individual exceptions) never particularly good at close ground support. Even the A-10 was a response to being greatly outnumbered in Europe. In Vietnam, the army got their best support from Army helos.

    The Marine (VSTOL) version of the F-35 really muddies the water. It is the most problematic of the F-35s and requires the best aviators in the world to fly the damn things. Yeah, I know the Marines cannot count on having either decent airbases or aircraft carriers, but a half-plane, half-helicopter weaposn system never will be particularly good at anything.

    If I were in charge, I'd cut my losses on the VSTOL F-35 (keep the others). I'd develop a revised Warthog, but it would be different. The tens of thiousands of soviet tanks are no more, so I'd built it around a smaller gun - probably a 20mm or even a .50 cal (12.7 mm) Gatling gun. the palne could be smaller and lighter and could carry more ammunition. A-10s can refuel when they go bingo, but when they go winchester, they have to RTB. More ammo = greater persistance. I'd equip the Thunderbolt III with broader wings for shorter takeoff and landing requirements. I'd add a provision for catapult and arrestor gear so it could be used from a carrier (Navy & Marines). The pilot compartment could be modular so the plane could be either human-piloted, remote control human-piloted or autonomous as the technology allows and the situation dictates. Making the plane STOL instead of VSTOL makes it a plane that can qualify pilots easily. Design the plane like the old DC-3 or B-52 with an open design airframe that can be easily upgraded. Obviously, engine design has come a long way since 1976.

    For its mission, the Warthog had a lot of good features (survivability from the armored pilot bathtub and engines in pods above the horizontal stabilizer and easy handling). It never was designed to be a fighter.

    My design flies in the face of DoD thought. Because weapons systems tend to be long-lived and very expensive, they have to be multi-mission capable. In general that works but at outrageous cost. The USN has always had to have big ships because it prowls the biggest oceans and its ships have to have long range. Long range dictates a bigger ship. Equally so, long range was found to be a huge asset in aircraft, but again that dictates a big plane. Big planes and ships tend to be expensive so there is incentive to keep them in service a long time and adapt them to many roles.

    A specialist ground attack plane bucks that trend. But then, so do helicopters which perforce must be specialized. A smaller A-10 would 90% fill the role of helicopters at much lower cost (procurement and operational costs) because it is simpler.
     
  8. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well I think aside from the other issues already raised. What is the Warthogs survivability in the modern battle field. I think back to the Stuka of WW2, a very good and accurate ground attack aircraft, if it could survive long enough to get to the target.
     
  9. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Cutting the fleet of A-10s saves the USAF $3 + billion spread over 5 years. This savings allows them to keep more capable multi-platform aircraft (F-35, F-16). It's a vertical cut, a divestiture, so the savings is in the billions. Other aircraft can perform CAS, which is the A-10s primay mission, through the evolution of targeting pods and PGM (precision guided munitions.) These CAS capabilities are no longer unique to the A-10.

    Addressing the possibility of using the A-10 for carrier operations. Not likely, requirements would need to be added to make that even remotely feasible; a stronger landing gear, corrosion resistance, and visibility as carrier landings require the pilot to have relatively unobstructed views of the deck. Also, the A-10 lacks fowler flaps which would lower the stall speed sufficiently to enable a carrier take-off and landing.

    Almost a new aircraft would have to be designed around the conversion of a land based aircraft to a carrier based one.

    To sum up, the A-10 is being put out to pasture for primarily 2 reasons.

    1. Budget cuts
    2. The CAS role can be delegated to other capable multi-platform aircraft.

    RIP
     
  10. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From the perspective of the Persian Gulf war.

    The B-52 did most of the work. 40% of Iraq's military capabilities were destroyed from weapons based on the B-52 platform flying over 1,600 sorties. Air power degraded the command structure, reduced military production, made the Iraqi air force ineffective, and degraded the overall combat effectiveness of the Iraqi army in the KTO (Kuwaiti theater of operations).
     
  11. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
  12. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because providing a ground support aircraft for the Army was mandated by the Key West Agreement.

    And while having an A-10 take off from a carrier would be a piece of cake, having them land would be pretty much impossible. They are simply to heavy to be modified for a tailhook and the nose gear modified for catapult launches.

    And do you know what the A-10 replaced?

    The Douglas A-1 Skyraider. A WWII piston driven propeller aircraft.

    I simply think it is past time to design a new aircraft in the A series. The biggest problem was that they did try that, and somehow some retard decided to spend billions on the A-12, a stealth bomber for the Navy and Marines to take off from carriers. This is how I knew the DoD was retarded. That to me made about as much sense as calling the F-117 (and Attack aircraft if I ever saw one) a "Fighter".

    *****

    And while it is true that many A-10 (if not all) can be relegated to helicopters, there are 2 places that a helicopter is clearly lacking.

    First is range. Helicopters can do some neat things, but flying efficiently is not one of them. Mile per mile they require a lot more fuel then a fixed wing aircraft, therefore have much shorter ranges. Most people tend to forget that the entire purpose of Operation Desert Claw was to make a fuel dump in the desert so that the helicopters could refuel going in and out of Iran.

    And secondly, that is speed. If you are under attack by an enemy force and you need CAS right now, which would you rather have respond?

    An AH-64, 182 MPH?

    Or an A-10, 440 MPH?

    The Hog also carries about 3 times the ordinance, a major consideration for any aircraft.
     
  13. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A-10 is flown by the USAF
    F-18 is flown by the Navy/Marines.

    How do you figure an A-10 pilot was "offered" an F-18 pilot slot. The aircraft is utilized by a completely different branch of the service.
     
  14. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "...there are 2 places that a helicopter is clearly lacking."

    Taxcutter says:
    One more. Helicopters, due to their complexity are phenomenal maintenance hogs.


    Back in the 90s, the metal fatigue problems on the A-10s was becoming apparent and the Air force wanted to get rid of the Warthog. The marines offered to take them all. Fearing loss of "turf" the Air Force recanted and took the A-10 through a Service Life Extension Program and got nearly twenty years more use from them.


    It would be foolish to replace the A-10 with ONLY and unmanned plane. The general airframe could easily be made to be modular: manned or unmanned. Then the sortie-generators could tailor the plane for the mission at hand.
     
  15. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ah yes, the Spad.

    The A-1 (and all its variants) was designed late in World War II. The navy realized their Avenger torpedo bombers and Helldiver dive bombers were obsolete. Also everybody figured out that gunners could not defend attack planes or bombers. And the magnificent Wright R-3350 engine (used in B-29s) had become available in numbers. Unlike the P-51 and Vought F4U – which continued production after the end of World War II – the Skyraider was designed from the ground up (by legendary designer Ed Heinemann) as a ground attack plane. Unlike the P-51 and F4U the Spad could be used as either a glide bomber, dive bomber, or torpedo bomber. By the end of the Korean War it had supplanted those World War II veterans in Navy service. It served the US from 1946 to 1973, and flew for other countries until the 80s. A 27 year run of service through two wars where it was used extensively ain’t half bad.

    The Spad might have continued onward but a logical decision was made to simplify logistics and have only aircraft that ran on jet fuel (the R-3350 required 130 octane avgas – heavily leaded). Plus by the end of Vietnam planes were designed around weapons rather than around engines as was 1940s practice.

    Before the end of the Vietnam war a design competition was held to determine the eventual replacement for the Spad. Two of them looked for all the world like P-51s and AD-1s with turboprop engines. They probably could have worked, but the A-10 was designed around the GAU-8 tank-killer cannon.

    Today’s ground attack drones are often turboprop planes so the present echoes the past in aircraft design.
     
  16. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The U.S. should go back the B-25H

    It had a 75mm cannon mounted in the nose, plus 4 .50 caliber in the nose also, 2 .50 machine guns in dorsal turret and 2 .50 machine guns in ventral turret. Capable of a carrying 3,000 lbs.as bomb payload. On paper this was a formidable machine, though in practice the 75mm cannon put a lot of wear and tear on the airframe.

    I don't hear much about this aircraft in historical shows relating to WW2 (Pacific theater). It was a gunship with formidable weapons to engage armored/fortified ground targets

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  17. PTPLauthor

    PTPLauthor Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The A-10 is shunned by the fighter community, because to them it's the Slow Low Aerial Target. The fighter guys get a lot of attention because it's more appealing to be Maverick than to be a guy supporting the ground-pounders.

    There's no doubt that the Hog is an invaluable asset for our military. The Air Force fields the Hog primarily for the benefit of the Army. The plane cannot be compared to any other aircraft except for the Su-25 Frogfoot and YA-9.

    An AH-64 and even an F-16CJ or F-15E can be put in the same role, but only the A-10 was designed expressly for the role of Close Air Support. Sure, the Apache has a 30mm gun, and the F-15E and F-16 have more payload, but only the A-10 has that GAU-8 Avenger that can cut through a tank like it's made out of softened butter.

    Yeah, the airframes are old, and the manufacturer is out of business, but that doesn't diminish that the A-10 was a valued asset. I'm sure the A-10 community loves the plane and didn't care what the fighter jocks thought.

    It was inevitable that the aircraft would be retired, just like it was inevitable that the F-14 was retired. The military has gone toward more multirole airframes as a way of getting more out of each airplane. The time for the A-10 had come and gone, and now that we're not having to game to plug the Fulda Gap, we don't really need a dedicated tankbuster.
     
  18. smevins

    smevins New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,539
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One always knows when they are coming. That thing has a pretty unique acoustic profile. They are wicked cool planes, but this is not the first time they have been on the chopping block. With the continued upgrades to the AC-130 series, it probably is time for the Warthogs to move onto the airshow circuit.
     
  19. everyman2013

    everyman2013 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    825
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If I remember correctly, it involved a change of service and re-training. Whether or not he was just blowing smoke, I couldn't say. Thanx for the response.
    Enjoy!
     
  20. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As I recall that beast was devestating to Japanese shipping.
     
  21. PTPLauthor

    PTPLauthor Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They actually do allow for people to switch branches.

    In another similar situation, when the Air Force retired the EF-111 Raven, it left the Navy as the only branch with electronic jamming aircraft. The Air Force then contributed some aircrew to the EA-6Bs based at Whidbey Island.
     
  22. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I suppose an interservice pilot transfer is possible given a hypothetical scenario of a pilot shortage in the Navy/Marines. Personally I'm not aware of anyone who has done it. Particulary if it was the Navy/Marines seeking out this Hog driver. It's not an impossible scenario, but highly improbable. I'll leave it at that. Now I did work with a 1st Lt. assigned to C-21s as I was and he was very unhappy about his next assignment, being assigned to the heavy world (cargo/tankers). He wanted pointy nose aircraft (fighters). He attempted to apply for an interservice transfer but was turned down based on no available pilot slots as priority went to Navy/Marine aviators. I told him, why in heck do you want to live on a boat with 5,000 other sweaty sailors and Marines for 6 months at a time? Nothing but water, day after God forsaken day.

    Can't talk sense to some people, but his transfer was denied. The USAF chain of command signs off on a DD-368, which is a Request for Conditional Release. Basically this tells the prospective gaining service that your current service will let you go if your transfer request is approved. Unless USAF approves it, you're staying put.
    It's a lot of hoops to jump through.
     
  23. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Based on an internet search as this intrigued me...indeed an interservice transfer among aviation units is done.

    One exception however is that it requries a bump in pay grade...an O-3 will start as an O-2 in the new service branch.

    I stand corrected, as apparently the Coast Guard fixed wing units are comprised of many interservice transfers.

    The only issue then with the gentlmen's friend claiming the Navy offered him a promotion to transfer from USAF to Navy...that seems to be an exception to the procedure.

    It will be interesting to see where the A-10 drivers who lose their ride will end up. Unmanned systems is a very real possibility and for that my heart goes out to tthem..that's a stake in the heart for any true flyer...to be relegated to steering remotely. It boils down to whatever ther services need, that's the bottom line...there is a fighter pilot shortage in the USAF as many are leaving for the major airlines, so take heart A-10 community, a ride in an F-16 chariot awaits you quite possibly.
     
  24. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Going off memory it was fairly heavily armored for an aircraft and could sustain a lot of damage and keep flying, but I don't know what the specific stats are to that.
     
  25. PTPLauthor

    PTPLauthor Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Fairly heavily armored" probably the biggest understatement of the A-10 in history, lol. The cockpit was surrounded by a titanium armor "bathtub". When it was built, I believe the A-10 could carry any weapon in the US inventory that could hang off an attack jet or a fighter jet including the B61 nuclear bomb.

    There are some pretty extraordinary examples of the Hog taking damage and still being able to fly back to base and land. One I know for sure was that a significant portion of a wing was missing due to ground fire, and the aircraft was able to land safely. The pilot was supposedly shocked that the aircraft was that damaged.

    I believe that the aircraft was designed to be able to still fly with half of the tail assembly removed, including an engine as well as significant wing damage. The Hog is an example of building a plane to survive CAS environments too, the way the engines are mounted serves to mask the exhaust so that Soviet MANPADS cannot easily lock on. An A-10 could be taken down, but the Soviets would have had to have worked at it.
     

Share This Page